VIJAY NATVARLAL TANK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Ashish M. Dagli for the applicant whereas learned APP Mr.Manan Mehta for the respondent no.1 - State and prosecuting agency and learned advocate Mr.R.C.Kakkad and Mr.D.B.Gohel for the respondent no.2. Perused the record.

(2.) Applicant herein has challenged the order dated 18.07.2016 below Exh.48 in Sessions Case No.48 of 2015 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO) and 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, whereby such application at Exh.48 whereby, applicant has called for several documents has been rejected.

(3.) The sum and substance in the applicant's case is to the effect that he is facing charges under Sections 376 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code, pursuant to complaint filed before the Rajkot Mahila Police Station as C.R.No.I 29 of 2014. It would be appropriate not to disclose the name of victim and witnesses since, complaint is under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, I have referred them either as a complainant or victim, as the case may be since tiral is pending. It is submitted by the applicant that considering his nature of duties he has to remain present in office from 10:30 a.m. to 6:10 p.m. and therefore, it is not possible for him to commit such offence as alleged against him. It is further contended that complaint was investigated by C.I.D. Crime Branch of Rajkot and thereafter, by detective police of Jamnagar but when he has called for their report under Right to Information Act, the same was denied and therefore, applicant has no option but to approach the Trial Court in pending case. It is further submitted that practically the applicant is facing charges only because he is serving in the Court and complainant who is an advocate had appeared through her advocate against him in every proceedings including bail application and that both the investigating agency as well as Lower Court has failed to call for the relevant documents and evidence which applicant has referred and relied upon to prove his innocence. It is further submitted that initially when complaint was filed, there was no allegation under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and that all such documents are lying with the judicial branch of the District Court but neither investigation agency nor the Trial Court is interested to verify and look into first version of story of the complainant and wants to proceed further against the applicant, based upon chargesheet which is selective step by the investigating agency to initiate proceeding under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code also. It is further submitted that some documents, though asked for under Right to Information Act, were denied for no valid reason and therefore, applicant is unable to prove his innocence through such documents if they are not produced on record. It is submitted that it would be necessary for the investigating agency, at-least to look into those evidence before filing chargesheet. It is further submitted that by rejecting the application at Exh.48, the Trial Court has not only refused to call for the documents but pre-supposed that such documents are not necessary or material and thereby, closed the right of applicant to prove it and even access to such documents by the applicant has been denied. It is further submitted that there would be no prejudice to the prosecution if such documents are produced on record and therefore, applicant has prayed to quash the impugned order.